Climate Change Complexity: Broadening the Horizon from Copenhagen to Paris

(1)

International Relations

Bachelor‟s level, IR103L 61-90 Bachelor‟s thesis, 15 credits Spring 2014

Supervisor: Susan Jackson

Climate Change Complexity

Broadening the Horizon from Copenhagen to Paris

(2)

i

Abstract: In recent years climate change has been featured much more prominently in

scholarly and public discourse. Especially since 2003 and 2007 the focus has shifted towards the security implications of climate change and the necessary measures to deal with climate change. The discourse commonly portrays climate change as a threat that substantially affects national and human security. Using frameworks of the Copenhagen School and Paris School, as well as discourse analysis, this thesis shows that climate change as a security issue is mainly understood in human security terms and seen to exacerbate already existing problems, such as poverty and food insecurity. The social and discursive construction of climate change as a security issue has influenced the policies and practices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as well as the United Nations Development Programme, as it has become a central element of their work. It is argued that the Paris School‟s climatization framework has more analytical value for the security analysis of climate change than the Copenhagen School‟s securitization theory.

Word count: 16.300

Keywords: Climate Change ∙ Security ∙ Paris School ∙ Copenhagen School ∙ United Nations ∙

(3)

ii

1. Introduction

Climate change refers to the process in which the composition of the global atmosphere alters, leading to a variety of climate-related changes in ecosystems and the biosphere in general. While this alteration is a rather slow natural process, human activities are seen to spur it on considerably by emitting various kinds of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (IPCC 2014). More recently, the debate on climate change and its challenges has gained increasing prominence in political discourse. The portrayal of climate change‟s potential impacts often paints a very grim, dystopian or even catastrophic picture of our and our planet‟s future. The underlying narrative surrounding climate change includes increased likelihoods of war, food and clean water scarcity, disease, mass dislocation and more (Gemenne et al. 2014). Additionally, the media and movies such as

The Day After Tomorrow or An Inconvenient Truth have reinforced our understanding of

climate change as a substantial threat to our very existence (Trombetta 2008). In practice, however, there is a considerable lack of convincing empirical evidence to explain causality – not correlation – between climate change and increased insecurity for the political, economic and social sectors (Barnett and Adger 2007). Furthermore, we yet have to understand fully the complexity of this global process.

Despite (or perhaps due to) the contemporary lack of understanding, much of the political and scholarly discourse tends to oversimplify the linkages of climate change and „global‟ insecurity, often portraying climate change as a direct substantial threat to human and/or national security. While such a rhetoric has provided a much greater deal of attention for climate change per se, it also has contributed to the „securitization‟ of climate change, which could mean “the issue is primarily addressed via traditional means of security policy” (Brzoska 2009: 137). In that case, finding environmentally sound and sustainable solutions to climate change might fade into the background, whereas traditional security measures gain prominence. Thus, it widely is debated within the scholarly field of „environmental security‟ whether such an approach is the most appropriate way to deal with climate change, its root causes and its impacts (see Foster 2013).

2. Purpose

The purpose of this thesis is to further engage with the uncertainty surrounding the general understanding of climate change and security. First, I aim to provide insight into how climate

(6)

2

change is perceived and portrayed in political discourse, but also how climate change is included in different policy fields as well as in their related practices. Second, I hope to provide more knowledge to the ongoing debate about the extent to which there is „securitization‟ of climate change or rather so-called „climatization‟ of policy fields. Third, I seek to explore how the practical approaches correspond to the climate discourse on the international level. Therefore the research questions guiding this thesis are: How is climate

change discursively produced as a security issue at the international level? And, how does climate change as a security issue influence the practices of the policy fields of migration as well as development?

Taking a critical security studies approach and using insights from the Copenhagen School‟s securitization theory and the Paris School‟s framework on climatization, I analyze the discourse and practices regarding climate change employed by different United Nations (UN) bodies, as well as the extent to which an actual „securitization‟ of climate change is evident. An analysis of discourse and practice allows for an assessment of whether or not an issue, here climate change, within the environmental sector is necessarily understood in terms of traditional security conceptualizations, or alternative security understandings instead. Lastly, I aim to fill a gap within the broader environmental security literature. A large part of the literature “considers how the effects of climate change need to be accounted for in security policies”; however, the opposite relationship is left mostly unexplored (Gemenne et al. 2014: 6). It is precisely this opposite relationship that I am interested in – meaning the relationship in terms of the effects certain security considerations or discourses have on “the way political institutions respond to climate change” (Gemenne et al. 2014: 6).

2.1 Relevance to International Relations

Although this topic might appear to reside on the margins of International Relations (IR), I argue that it is in fact very much germane to the field of IR and of great importance to international politics. First, this thesis contributes knowledge to one of the central fields of IR, namely security. It also places one of the main international institutions, the UN, at the center of its analysis. This thesis utilizes a critical security and, to some extent, constructivist approach, drawing on well-established critical security theories and also engaging in theory testing of these frameworks. Thus, the thesis contributes knowledge to the field of critical security studies and aims to further develop that approach. The research does so by analyzing the security understanding of climate change and investigating the relationship between rhetoric and practice within the policy fields of migration and development. Not drawing on

(7)

3

one of the conventional theoretical approaches of IR, such as Realism or Liberalism, but instead using a counter theoretical approach such as critical security studies might help to broaden IR‟s horizon, which regularly has been called for by various IR scholars (e.g., see Buzan and Little 2000; Held and McGrew 2007).

Moreover, this thesis engages with one of the allegedly top ranking threats to international peace and security of the 21st century – climate change (see Kerry, 2014).1 As climate change becomes an increasingly relevant topic, it is important to provide a critical understanding of the way climate change is approached and how it is linked to security. Rather than right away accepting that climate change poses an existential threat to all kinds of security, it should be analyzed how climate change and security are linked through discourse and practice. Further, research on climate change, security, and the UN contributes to the fields of security studies and environmental security, which have been part of IR security scholarship for quite a while now (see Barnett 2013; Waever and Buzan 2013).

2.2 Thesis Outline

The rest of this thesis is structured as follows. In order to provide the reader with an early understanding of how this research approaches climate change and security, the concepts of „securitization‟ and „climatization‟ are presented in the next chapter on ‘Understanding

Climate Change and Security’. Following this, the relevant body of relevant literature from

the field of environmental security and previous research on climate change and security is presented in the ‘Literature Review’ chapter. A discussion of the thesis‟ research question and hypothesis follows in the ‘Research Question’ chapter. The ‘Theory’ chapter provides the important theoretical frameworks for this thesis and additionally, engages in a theoretical discussion on which school of thought holds most analytical value in regards to this thesis. Furthermore, ‘Methodology and Method’ shows how discourse analysis is used in this thesis, which materials are used, how the research is conducted, and the delimitations. In the chapter on ‘Analysis’ the actual research on three different United Nations documents is conducted and the research findings are discussed. Finally, the ‘Conclusion’ chapter summarizes the main findings and gives suggestions for further research.

1

US Secretary of State, John Kerry (2014), has argued that climate change is one of the top global threats, equal to threats such as terrorism, epidemics, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

(8)

4

3. Understanding Climate Change and Security

So why should we care if climate change is being linked to security? The short answer would be: because producing climate change as a security issue has very specific implications for the way(s) with which it is dealt. Yet, to answer this question in greater detail and in order to show what we can make of climate change as a security issue, I shortly introduce the concepts of „securitization‟ and „climatization‟. Even though these concepts are discussed mainly in the theory chapter, I would like to familiarize the reader with the concepts already, as they constitute important cornerstones of this thesis.

3.1 Securitization and Climatization

The Copenhagen School and Paris School both represent critical security approaches. Yet, the Paris School has tried to move beyond the Copenhagen School, by not relying on a fixed understanding of security. The Schools respective concepts of securitization and climatization provide the theoretical basis, helping to understand the production/construction of climate change as a security issue.

According to the Copenhagen School, the process of securitization is essentially a negative development, in which an issue is expressed as a security concern that requires

extraordinary means. Through securitizing speech acts and securitizing moves, an issue can

be constructed discursively as a threat to security. Once an issue is commonly referred to as an existential threat to security, and is accepted as such by a relevant audience, the particular issue can be considered „securitized‟. An advantage of such securitization is the increased attention paid to the issue, which might include more funds being made available to it (Nyman 2013). However, securitization also is used to justify “exceptional political measures” to deal with the securitized issue, which can involve traditional security/military means (Peoples and Vaughan-Williams 2010: 77). Buzan et al. (1998) consider securitization as an indicator of a failure to address an issue within „normal‟ politics, and Waever (1995) has called for “less security, more politics!” Nonetheless, as shown above, climate change commonly has been expressed as a substantial threat to national and human security, indicating that a securitization of climate change might be at play.

The Paris School offers another framework, the so called „climatization of the security field‟, to understand how climate change is produced as a security concern. The Paris School argues that the discursive construction of climate change as a security issue certainly hints that “professionals of (in)security (i.e. intelligence, military, police, defense ministries) are producing climate change as a legitimate threat in their everyday practices” (Oels 2012: 185).

(9)

5

At the same time, however, the security field is being expanded because climate change professionals and their practices, such as risk management or climate modeling, are being included, which transform the security field and its practices (Oels 2012: 185). Since the Paris School relies on a broader understanding of security, the „security field‟ is more than just the defense sector, and also includes fields such as migration and development. The Paris School contends that evidence of security transformations can so far be found within the policy fields of defense, migration and development. Furthermore, in contrast to the Copenhagen School, the Paris School argues that to understand how climate change is produced as a security issue we need to assess not only the discourse but also the policy implications and practices. Moreover, whether the production of climate change as a security issue should be considered a positive or negative development depends on the employed strategies and policy implications (Oels 2012: 190-191). In doing so, the Paris School adopts a crucially different understanding of the concept of security. Unlike the Copenhagen School, the Paris School understands processes of security as not necessarily negative – it depends on the practices. Consequently, securitization rhetoric is not inextricably linked to extraordinary measures.

4. Literature Review

The literature has identified multiple connections between climate change and security. The general discourse on climate change is very complex and there are evidences for both securitization and climatization. First, a broader overview of existing perspectives within the „environmental security‟ literature is provided. Second, more in-depth knowledge is provided by looking at previously conducted research relating to the discourse and practices surrounding climate change. Overall, the literature review provides the basis on which to build this research, and simultaneously locates it within the existing body of literature.

4.1 Climate Change and Security – Where Are the Links?

Several links between climate change and security have been established within the environmental security literature. Climate change commonly is seen to threaten national and human security directly or through secondary impacts, e.g., causing resource scarcity. Gemenne, Barnett, Adger and Dabelko (2014: 4) identify four key areas of investigation within the literature on climate change and security: violent conflict, forced (mass) migration, reversed causality, and risks to human security. These „themes‟ often can be found within the political discourse as well.

(10)

6

First, probably the largest body of research has been done on the connections between climate change and violence. Specifically this type of research considers if and how “climate change may increase the risk of violence” as well as “the potential mechanisms through which climate change may increase that risk” (Gemenne et al. 2014: 4). While some scholars have made strong claims about causal connections between climate change and increased risk of violent conflict (e.g., see Hsiang and Burke 2014), others remain critical to that connection and have found little evidence to explain convincingly the relationship between climate and conflict (see Gleditsch 2012). Thus, instead of portraying climate change as a direct cause of conflict it has often been referred to as a „threat multiplier‟ instead (Barnett 2013: 198). This body of research is connected closely to the „environmental conflict thesis‟, by Thomas Homer-Dixon. A commonly featured theme is resource scarcity as a key driver for various conflicts. As natural resources are seen to decrease, civil strife and the likelihood for violent conflict could increase (Floyd 2008; see also Homer-Dixon 1999).

Second, another focus within the „climate security‟ literature is on forced (mass) migration as a result of a changing climate, but also how climate-induced migration might cause and spread violent conflict. Major decreases in living conditions or loss of territory due to rising sea-levels could trigger mass migration in various regions. Similar to the first body of literature, climate change is considered a substantial threat to the security of states and people. However, some scholars point out that a clear-cut connection between climate change, migration and violent conflict is hard to establish empirically (e.g., see Gemenne et al. 2014: 4).

Third, a lot less attention has been paid to reversed causality where “conflict is a powerful driver of vulnerability to climate change” (Gemenne et al. 2014: 4). While it remains contested to which extent climate change can directly or indirectly cause violent conflict, some scholars are certain that it is violent conflict that renders people more vulnerable and exposed to climate change (see Barnett 2006) This body of literature considers that this reversed causality applies to migration as well, as migration actually is an important mechanism of adaption to climate change (see Tacoli 2009).

Lastly, another main area of investigation has evolved around the risks posed by climate change to human security. The causal connections between climate change and human security increasingly are considered and some studies have concluded that “climate change poses risks to livelihoods, communities, and cultures” (Gemenne et al. 2014: 4; see also Barnett and Adger 2007). Human health and security can be affected directly or indirectly by

(11)

7

various impacts of climate change, such as more intense natural disasters, decreasing natural resources, loss of geographical space etc. A common critique to this human security approach, however, is that it is too all-encompassing and offers little advice on realizable policy-making (Floyd 2008: 57).

Floyd (2008: 58-61) identifies another, yet rather small, discussion within environmental security that focuses on environmental peacemaking or environmental cooperation and explores the possibilities of joint environmental action to foster international cooperation. The idea of environmental peacemaking or environmental cooperation certainly provides a starting point for a counter-discourse to the securitization of climate change and might open up space for a „de-securitization‟ of the matter (Floyd 2008: 58-61).

4.2 States, Discourse and the Climate-Security Nexus

When it comes to the overall debate on climate change or the environment in general, Gemenne et al. (2014: 2) point out an important factor that hampers a constructive debate on the most critical aspects of a continuously changing climate and environment. This factor is that the debate often has been phrased in an environmentally deterministic way in which environmental issues are portrayed as the driver for various social outcomes, despite a lack of an empirical understanding regarding the links between climate change and security (Gemenne et al. 2014: 2). The remainder of this section is organized to frame the literature in the current academic debate on climate change and security.

Another insightful and important contribution on securitization and policy advice regarding climate change comes from Brzoska (2009). Drawing on insights from the Copenhagen School, he explains that securitization can lead “to all-round „exceptionalism‟ in dealing with the issue” which promotes, among other things, an increased reliance on security experts, military and police (Brzoska 2009: 138). Additionally, he points to the fact that “while there is no necessary link between higher military expenditure and a lower willingness to spend on preventing and preparing for climate change, both policy areas are in competition for scarce resources” (Brzoska 2009: 138). Thus, the portrayal of climate change and the policies connected to it determine the overall approach of states, i.e., a traditional security approach versus more sustainable approaches. Furthermore, similar to Gemenne et al. (2014), Brzoska (2009: 138) contends that “the acceptance of the security consequences of climate change as an intractable problem could well reduce efforts to find peaceful solutions” to the risks and dangers associated with it.

(12)

8

„securitization‟. As an example, some argue that with new understandings of security, new logics and actors enter the field which in turn transform traditional security policies, making the Copenhagen School‟s notion of „securitization‟ a matter of the past, mainly relevant to the Cold War (Trombetta 2008: 539; see also Brzoska 2009: 138-139). The Paris School‟s idea of the climatization of the security field entails such an understanding. Instead of a mere securitization of climate change, there seems to be a reflexive relationship between the security field and climate change, meaning that certain security strategies are applied to climate change, while climate policies alter security practices (Oels 2012: 185).

Testing the securitization hypothesis, Brzoska (2009) investigates whether the portrayal of climate change as a threat necessarily leads to policy advice that relies on traditional security approaches. In order to do so, he analyses four different studies on the impacts of climate change with broad and narrow understandings of security. Despite focusing on different referent objects of security (state and individual) all four studies regard climate change “as a great, if not the greatest danger for international peace and security in the 21st century” (Brzoska 2009: 139). Yet, Brzoska (2009: 144) finds that only one of the four studies explicitly concluded that greater „military preparedness‟ is needed as a response to climate change in order to “combat the outbreaks of violence” and other serious effects associated with climate change.2 The other three studies did not give such recommendations and rather focused on multiple mitigation and adaptation strategies. One of these studies directly suggested making “cuts in military spending to free financial resources for adaptation”, while the other two “warn[ed] against falling back towards the use of traditional security policy” (Brzoska 2009: 144). However, Brzoska also acknowledges that in contrast to these studies, a „securitization‟ of climate change may very well be at work on the international level, as for example both NATO and the EU have prioritized climate change as a top threat to security. Similar to Brzoska‟s research, Detraz and Betsill (2009) have examined how the connections between climate change and security generally have been understood and whether there have been any major discursive shifts in public discourse. In their study, Detraz and Betsill (2009) conducted a discourse and content analysis of the UN Security Council debate on global climate change in 2007. They found that the debate mostly has been framed in a way that they call „environmental security‟. Thus, most states expressed their concern about the negative security implications “of environmental degradation for human beings”, representing a human security understanding of climate change (Detraz and Betsill 2009:

(13)

9

306). Even though 85 percent of the speakers acknowledged a link between climate change and armed conflict, they mainly did so in a broad understanding of security instead of a narrower national security understanding. Moreover, the speakers remained divided on whether the UNSC is the right forum for discussing climate change. Detraz and Betsill (2009) then compared the discourse employed at the 2007 UNSC debate to earlier debates and documents on climate change, e.g., by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). They found that the „environmental security‟ perspective was largely the dominant one. In comparison, relatively little evidence was found for a narrower traditional security understanding, which they call „environmental conflict‟ (Detraz and Betsill 2009). According to Detraz and Betsill (2009), climate change commonly has been understood to increase human vulnerabilities and affect human security. However, they do not rule out the possibility of a future discursive shift to an „environmental conflict‟ understanding of climate change – a shift they would consider counterproductive. While the findings Detraz and Betsill (2009) provide detailed insight into the discourse on climate change, they do not connect discourse and practice.

In another study, Brzoska (2012) creates a clearer link between discourse and practice when analyzing the discourse on climate change in various states‟ White Papers and national defense documents. Using the terms „environmental security‟ and „environmental conflict‟ from Detraz and Betsill (2009), Brzoska (2012) also finds that the broader „environmental security‟ perspective represents the most common way the links between climate change and security are understood. A few states, such as USA, UK, Finland, Russia and Australia, see climate change as a potentially large or very large threat and add to the broader human security understanding also a narrower national security understanding, i.e. the „environmental conflict‟ perspective (Brzoska 2012). Yet, a clear majority of states do not seem to adopt such a perspective, but rather they estimate that climate change threatens the lives as well as livelihoods of individuals. Accordingly, disaster management, to ensure human security, represents the dominant focus of policy measures within the security documents. Other policies suggested by the various documents include adaptation, crisis management, conflict prevention, and in very few cases enhancing military capabilities (Brzoska 2012). Even though many of the proposed policy measures, such as disaster management and conflict prevention, make room for active involvement of the armed forces, Brzoska (2012) concludes that there are generally few suggestions for a clear role of the

(14)

10

armed forces in regards to climate change. Brzoska (2012) provides in-depth knowledge of national understandings of and approaches to climate change. However, an analysis of how different policy fields incorporate climate change and security remains open.

Regarding the practical approaches to climate change, Oels (2013) has found that

‘traditional risk management based on prediction’ and ‘risk management through contingency’ are the dominant risk managing approaches. The traditional risk management

approach aims to “[r]educe risks to a „tolerable level‟ defined by science and technology” (Oels 2013: 19). This type of risk management represents the risk of climate change as knowable, calculable and controllable, while aiming to reduce possible vulnerabilities of some social groups (Oels 2013: 19). Rather than reducing risks to a „safe‟ level, the risk management through contingency approach aims to “[m]obilise and empower people to adapt to radical contingency”, which includes capacity building, data-mining and surveillance (Oels 2013: 19). Climate change is presented as an uncertain, hard to predict, and inevitable risk which calls for preparedness and resilience. Furthermore, Oels (2013: 21) finds that besides mitigation, which focuses on the control of greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent „dangerous‟ climate change levels, adaptation has become a rather dominant approach to responding to climate change. The adaptation approach aims to manage the impacts of climate change and considers certain impacts of climate change as inevitable. Oels (2013) argues that adaptation or security concerns have not replaced mitigation, but instead “adaptation and security emerge alongside mitigation” (Oels 2013: 21, emphasis in original). Based on the dominant approaches to climate change and the risk management practices, Oels (2013) concludes that there are only very few suggestions for „conflict prevention‟ strategies, and no evidences for securitization of climate change, at least in the way the Copenhagen School understands securitization. The links between climate change and security should rather be understood as climatization, evident in the policy fields of defense, migration and development.

On a more general level, various scholars have warned about the linking of the environment to security. Even though the securitization of the environment and climate change raises awareness and attention paid to the issue, it also can backfire. For example, Deudney (1999) claims that securitizing environmental change is in fact counterproductive to developing effective solutions for a sustainable future, and that we should abandon the security framing of environmental concerns entirely. Moreover, scholars within the environmental security field, especially those dealing with „ecological security‟ (meaning the

(15)

11

environment is the referent object to be protected from harmful practices) warn that a traditional security approach and even our general anthropocentric view on the environment is the wrong way to deal with environmental concerns, as this type of approach tends to neglect the root causes of climate change (see Barnett 2013; Detraz 2012; Booth 2007).

5. Research Question

The literature review has shown that there is a certain ambiguity surrounding the relationship between climate change and security. On the one hand, there are a few instances of „securitization moves‟ and most of the political discourse surrounding climate change is very much concerned with the various security implications of a changing climate. On the other hand, there is a general variation among security understandings of climate change and so far there is little evidence of any „exceptionalism‟ or extraordinary means being applied to it. In this thesis I try to clear some of this ambiguity by analyzing not only the international discourse on climate change, but also the practices and strategies being applied to climate change. Furthermore, drawing on the Copenhagen School and Paris School‟s respective theoretical frameworks for security analysis, this thesis aims to investigate whether we should understand climate change and security in terms of a securitization of climate change (Copenhagen School) or rather in terms of a climatization of the security field (Paris School). An analysis of discourse and practice also sheds light on which security understanding is employed regarding climate change, how climate change is portrayed, and which measures to deal with climate change are considered appropriate. Thus, the research questions guiding this thesis are:

How is climate change discursively produced as a security issue at the international level? And, how does climate change as a security issue influence the practices of the policy fields of migration as well as development?

The first question is concerned with the discursive practices and fixing of a certain (security) understanding of climate change. Moreover, it also considers which practical approach dominates the suggested solutions in dealing with climate change, e.g. mitigation, adaption and/or conflict prevention. Rather than merely accepting that climate change necessarily and substantially affects our security, I hope to reveal the social construction of climate change as a security issue. I deliberately chose to ask a how rather than a why question here. Since

(16)

12

climate change is an ongoing process and our understanding of it continues to evolve, it might be very difficult to trace the explanatory factors and their interaction contributing to why climate change is produced as a security issue. Instead, asking how limits the scope of the thesis and makes it much more researchable (Halperin and Heath 2012: 111). Furthermore, although the first question is rather descriptive it still contains an explanatory element, as it explains how the discourse manifests a certain understanding of climate change.

The second question continues the research process initiated by the first question, as it considers in greater detail the effect of climate change‟s articulation and climate-related practices on the different policy fields of migration and development, as well as their respective strategies and policy recommendations. I seek to find out which practical approaches or policies are devised and how these connect to the broader discourse on climate change. The aim is to help deepen existing understandings of how climate change and security are linked in these specific policy fields, and how climate change is seen to threaten security. This approach also helps to further develop the Paris School‟s framework for climatization of the security field, as the Paris School has called for more research regarding the climatization of the „security field‟, meaning the policy fields of defense, migration and development (see Oels 2012).

5.1 Main Assumption and Working Hypothesis

Based on the idea that discourse informs the way we act, as it shapes commonly shared understandings, meanings and beliefs, as well as creates intersubjective perceptions of security or „threats‟ (Klotz and Lynch 2007), I derive the following assumption. The type of climate change and security discourse employed, first and foremost, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and by the other UN bodies, shapes the overall perception of climate change and its „level of threat‟. Accordingly, climate change is rendered governable in a specific way, leading to either more or less securitized approaches. However, I assume that there is more than discourse to the construction of climate change as a security issue. Therefore, I mainly rely on the Paris School‟s framework and consider the linkages between discourse and practice. Consequently, a rhetoric that indicates securitization is not necessarily followed by extraordinary means, as the Copenhagen School would suggest. Using the insights from the literature, I hypothesize that climate change is mainly understood in human security terms and that climate change as a security issue transforms practices within the fields of migration and development. Although climate change might not be best understood as a „successful‟ securitization, climate change still is being linked to security.

(17)

13

Therefore, the concept of climatization is the most suitable framework for the security analysis of climate change, as it relies on a more open conceptualization of security.

6. Theory

This chapter aims to show how the theoretical choices fit with the research problem at hand and how the theory informs the way this research is conducted. I build on the Copenhagen School‟s securitization theory to understand why the portrayal of climate change matters and how we can understand discursive practices surrounding climate change. Furthermore, I discuss important critiques and shortcomings of the Copenhagen School‟s theoretical model when studying the securitization of climate change. This discussion is followed by a presentation of the Paris School and „climatization‟. I argue that, using securitization theory offers a foundation to understand the discursive construction of climate change as a threat but that understanding the nature of the relation between climate change and security, as well as relating practices, is better understood from the perspective of the Paris School.

6.1 The Copenhagen School and Securitization

The most important contribution from securitization theory to this research is the process of securitization. As already mentioned above, there is evidence for securitization of climate change, which impacts the understanding of climate change and shapes responses to it. But how does securitization work?

According to the Copenhagen School, securitization is a process through which an issue, such as climate change, terrorism or AIDS, is being linked to security by repeatedly referring to it as a security issue. Thus, security is firstly a discursive process, also called „speech act‟, in which a certain issue receives special attention as it is being linked to security in order to give that issue a supreme priority status. Simply by speaking security the process of securitization is already initiated (Nyman 2013). However, speaking security does not always result in „successful‟ securitization.3 The positioning of the securitizing actor is an important factor for the securitization of an issue. Actors in a position of power or authority are generally much more likely to prompt securitization. Furthermore, successful securitization depends on a variety of factors such as the general features of the „threat‟, timing, the audience‟s acceptance of the „threat‟, and the relationship between speaker and audience. (Nyman 2013: 59).

3

The notion of „successful‟ and „failed‟ securitization might sound misleading, as the Copenhagen School actually considers any „successful‟ securitization a negative development.

(18)

14

Even though securitization raises the attention paid to a particular issue and might free up extra funds for it, the Copenhagen School does not perceive this process as a positive one because it “evokes an image of threat-defense, allocating to the state an important role in addressing” the issue (Waever 1995: 47). Once something has been „successfully‟ securitized it can be placed “above normal politics and decision-making processes” (see Figure 1) which can justify measures that would otherwise be considered illegitimate (Nyman 2013: 54). As the literature review has shown, there is an awareness of the increasing security discourse surrounding climate change and the discourse‟s potential for lifting the topic out of the political realm and into the security realm (e.g., see Brzoska 2009; Gemenne et al. 2014; Deudney 1999). Following the logic of securitization theory, portraying climate change as a substantial security threat might lead to a greater reliance on “security organizations – such as more use of arms, force and violence” in order to counter some of the risks associated with climate change, e.g., increased likelihood of (civil) conflict due to scarce resources, mass migration and loss of geographical space (Brzoska 2009: 138).

However, successful securitization does not always have to be connected to military means, as it is in the case with the „Global War on Terror‟. Rather, securitization is about the overall exceptional status an issue receives and the emergency measures taken in response to that issue. For example, the financial crisis of 2008-2009 could be considered a case of successful securitization because it was “responded to with frequent exceptional „crisis talks‟ by heads of government”, legislation was passed as emergency measures with little consultation, and for a large part the issue was dealt with outside the scope of normal politics (Oels 2012: 193).

Figure 1: Classification of issues according to securitization theory, Source: Nyman (2013: 54).

(19)

15

Yet, the Copenhagen School has received a substaintial amount of critique, especially regarding the level of analysis as it has been described as too state-centric (Nyman 2013: 60). In order to study securitization at the system level, Buzan and Waever (2009) revisited securitization theory and developed the concept of „macrosecuritization‟, which combine various other securitizations from lower levels and bring them together into a larger order. The central aspect of macrosecuritizations is their “possibility to operate as the interpretive framework for other securitisations” (Buzan and Waever 2009: 265). Buzan and Waever (2009) consider Global Warming as a potential candidate for a macrosecuritization because it resides on the global/system level and often is portrayed as an existential threat which includes various other security concerns such as forced mass migration due to environmental issues, global energy insecurity, civil conflicts due to food and water scarcity, and more. However, whether climate change should be understood in the framework of the Copenhagen School‟s securitization, let alone a macrosecuritization, remains doubtful.

6.1.1 A Case of Scholarly Blindness?

Various critical security scholars remain unconvinced of the Copenhagen School‟s framework (Nyman 2013). This is largely because in their securitization analysis, the Copenhagen School connects the meaning of security to „existential threats‟ and policy responses are fixed to one option, i.e., extraordinary measures (Oels 2012: 193). Furthermore, Bigo (2007) claims that narrowing the meaning of security to existential threats and extraordinary means only scratches the surface and leaves other important processes and practices of security untouched. Moreover, due to the „narrow‟ and inflexible understanding of security dynamics, the Copenhagen School has at various instances assessed that climate change represents a failed securitization because “there is no evidence of undemocratic procedures and of extraordinary measures” (Oels 2012; see also Brauch and Oswald Spring 2011). Yet, it remains blind to other practices of security that should be considered in a different context. Similarly, the human security perspective has claimed that the Copenhagen School is blind to alternative security discourses or to “transformations in the logic of security and in the practices of security” (Oels 2012: 194). If security were to be understood in terms of human security, the counterproductive effects of securitization (in the sense of the Copenhagen School) could be averted, and the daily insecurity as well as vulnerabilities of people could be addressed effectively (Oels 2012: 194; see also Kerr 2013).

However, the human security perspective itself is not devoid of theoretical issues. Ambiguity in the concept‟s definition/understanding and its potential abuse for future

(20)

16

responsibility-to-protect interventions render the concept not unproblematic (Oels 2012; Peoples and Vaughan-Williams 2010). Nonetheless, the human security perspective‟s critique of the Copenhagen School‟s fixed understanding of security is an important point to consider. It is important because with a more open understanding of security dynamics we might be able to see that the Copenhagen School‟s assessment of climate change as a „failed‟ securitization is not completely accurate and, in fact, misses other ongoing security dynamics or even transformations of security conceptualizations.

While securitization theory can provide a basic framework for understanding the social and discursive construction of threats, the Paris School can offer a richer and more holistic approach for security analysis (Oels 2012: 202).

6.2 The Paris School and Climatization

The Paris School represents another approach to the study of how subjects and objects can be produced as security issues. In contrast to the Copenhagen School, the Paris School does not fix the meaning of security, thus allowing for a different kind of approach to understanding security. Instead, the Paris School draws on Foucault‟s security dispositif which depicts how various elements such as “discourses, legal texts, institutions, technological devices, and the daily practices of actors” are interconnected and jointly contribute to the production of a social problem as a security issue (Oels 2012: 197). Hence, the Paris School considers discursive and non-discursive elements in its analysis of the social construction of threats/security, and is not limited to speech acts only. Furthermore, this perspective holds that practice and policy implications, rather than merely the discourse, indicate whether a securitization should be considered a „positive‟ or „negative‟ development (Oels 2012: 198). Similar to the Copenhagen School, the Paris School understands that security and threats are socially constructed, and therefore, the whole security field is a socially constructed space. This socially constructed space changes as legitimate members and/or would-be members engage in a constant renegotiation of the security field‟s „boundaries‟, meaning that understandings of security, referent objects and security practices can change over time (Bigo 2008). As a result, the security field, in the Paris School‟s understanding, does not include only the military, police, and intelligence, but also other “securitized sectors like migration and development – and more recently climate change itself” (Oels 2012: 197). Due to the different approach in its security analysis, the Paris School largely moves away from studying „extraordinary means‟ and rather investigates the heterogeneous network surrounding various security practices and discourses, which includes “the routine practices of (non-elite)

(21)

17

professionals of security, and [to analyze] how their practices produce security discourses (and are incited by them)” (Oels 2012: 201). Therefore, discourse, policy and practice are mutually important elements to consider when studying security. Further, in this sense the Paris School remains both more open and more critical to various security dynamics as it does not generalize about security, its logics, and its related practices.

6.2.1 Climatization of Defense, Migration and Development

Oels (2012: 201) argues that what the Copenhagen School understands as a failed securitization of climate change should instead be reconceptualized as the „climatization of the security field‟. The climatization of the security field can be understood as an ongoing process in which “existing security practices are applied to the issue of climate change and that new practices from the field of climate policy are introduced into the security field” (Oels 2012: 197). The Copenhagen School, however, is likely to miss these practices as they do not represent extraordinary means, yet. While the international community widely understands climate change as an issue of human security (see Brzoska 2012; Detraz and Betsill 2009; Oels 2012), it is unclear to what extent the articulation of climate change as an issue to human security has led to any particularly productive policies and practices. Using the Paris School‟s framework, Oels (2012) explains that various security practices can be identified within the fields of defense, migration and development.

Security practices within the field of defense involve strategies such as capacity building, increasing disaster management capabilities, and monitoring so called „climate change hot spots‟, meaning areas which are especially vulnerable to climate change (Oels 2012: 199). As mentioned before, while such measures are not exceptional or outside the „normal‟ political realm, they do open up the way towards more militarized means, or even military responsibility-to-protect interventions within such „climate change hot spots‟ or states failing “to offer sufficient levels of protection to their population after a climate-induced disaster” hits them (Oels 2012: 199, emphasis in original).

In the field of migration the climate security discourse adds the risk of „millions and millions of climate refugees‟ to already existing (unreasonable) fears about large-scale migration flows from the Global South to the Global North. Practical approaches include enhancing resilience to weather variability and increasing the adaptive capacities of local populations (Oels 2012: 200). An important aspect to remember about the Paris School is that it does not judge „securitization moves‟ as necessarily negative – it depends on the actual policies and their practical outcomes. Hence, security measures do not always indicate a

(22)

18

failure of „normal‟ politics or lead to more militarized responses to an issue, as the Copenhagen School might predict.

The climatization of the development field is largely about “the introduction of adaptation as a new goal of development policy” (Oels 2012: 200). Hence, using disaster planning and adaptation measures to increase resilience, coping capacity and self-reliance is increasingly important, perhaps even more than the actual reduction of poverty levels (Oels 2012: 200). Furthermore, there is a possibility for future development assistance to prioritize „climate change hot spots‟ in order to mitigate vulnerabilities and prevent migration as well as conflict or instability (Oels 2012: 201).

6.3 The Schools in Comparison

Both schools have a critical approach to security and both of them pay attention to the kind of security rhetoric applied to an issue. The Copenhagen School shows that “invoking the concept of security is a discursive process that erases all rules of normal politics” (C.A.S.E. Collective 2006: 473). Therefore, it is of utmost importance to analyze the type of rhetoric used to describe an issue. Yet, while the Copenhagen School‟s focus on speech acts and extraordinary means can be seen as an analytical strength, it is also one of the school‟s biggest weaknesses and most critiqued points (Floyd 2010). Necessarily understanding security as a negative development, and in terms of exceptional measures, prevents the Copenhagen School from understanding security in a broader, more alternative way, e.g., like the human security approach does (McDonald 2008). The Paris School takes the critique against the Copenhagen School into account and argues that there is more to the construction of security and threats than speech acts. Hence, the Paris School points out that the actual practices and policies need to be looked at in order to fully understand the nature of a particular securitization of an issue. That is, simply speaking security does not always indicate how an issue is dealt with, however, analyzing the practices of various policy fields does. Oels (2012) suggests that looking at the policy fields of defense, migration and development, while using the concept of climatization, is more appropriate to understanding the links between climate change and security than the Copenhagen School‟s concept of securitization. Therefore, this research analyzes the kind of climate change and security rhetoric employed but also considers the practices in order to make inferences about the nature of climate change‟s securitization.

(23)

19

7. Methodology and Method

This chapter provides a discussion of the methodological choice, methods used, and how relevant data is gathered. As explained in the theory section, the Copenhagen School and Paris School both include discursive elements in their respective security analyses. Hence, discourse analysis is the methodology and method of choice here, as this research is interested in the connection between discourse and reality, i.e. the rhetoric on climate change and the related practices. Analyzing the discourse on climate change provides greater insight into how climate change is constructed as a threat but also which responses to climate change are regarded appropriate. Furthermore, following the Paris School‟s framework, practical approaches and policy suggestions in the field of migration and development are considered as well. The analysis includes looking at three different UN bodies, namely the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the UN Development Programme (UNDP). The reason for choosing the UN is because studying the UN is a good way to see the conceptual understandings on a broader, system level, thereby building on the state-level work already conducted in this area. In line with the theoretical approaches, this thesis can be situated clearly in the post-positivist spectrum, since it holds that a certain reality (in this case security and threat) is subjectively created and that meaning needs to be inferred through interpretation. Thus, this thesis follows an interpretivist understanding as it argues that the links between climate change and security do not exist independently of our knowledge (Halperin and Heath 2012: 40-41). Even though climate change has some „real‟ physical implication for humans and the environment, it still is subjectively created which threats should be focused on, how they should be understood, and which referent object is seen to be threatened. Furthermore, there is no objective security either since fundamental ideas of security are also products of social construction, indicated by the different conceptual understandings of security, such as national security, human security, ecological security etc. Discourse analysis reflects such a post-positivist understanding and helps the researcher to maintain a “skeptical attitude towards claims of a single rationality and objective truth” (Feindt and Oels 2005). In this sense, there is also no one understanding of climate change, its impacts on security, and which measures are needed, but rather there are different discourses that construct a certain understanding of climate change and security. This thesis employs discourse analysis in order to understand the meaning attached to climate change and security, as well as to see how climate change is

(24)

20

produced as a security concern (Halperin and Heath 2012). So what does discourse analysis entail?

7.1 Discourse Analysis

Social sciences as a whole, including political science and IR, have consistently grown in its reliance on textual analysis. The analysis of language, discourse, and meaning has proven very useful to a wide range of political research. Discourse analysis has become an integral part of IR research by now (Halperin and Heath 2012). The term discourse can be understood as “a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations that are produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities” (Hajer 1997: 44). A discourse analysis is a qualitative type of textual analysis that tries to uncover the way a certain reality is produced and how that reality fits within a particular context (Hardy, Harley and Phillips 2004: 19). Discourse analysis is both interpretive and constructivist. It is interpretive because “it assumes that people act on the basis of beliefs, values, or ideology that give meaning to their action” and thus, we need to study the meaning that people attach to their actions (Halperin and Heath 2012: 310-311). Discourse analysis is constructivist in the sense that it assumes that people socially and discursively construct meaning. Therefore, a discourse analysis needs to pay close attention to the discursive practices that construct meaning “through the production, dissemination, and consumption” of a wide range of written, oral, and visual „texts‟ (Halperin and Heath 2012: 311). Moreover, discourse analysis is not just concerned with a text per se, but also with the relation between text and context (Halperin and Heath 2012).

Considering the relation between text/discourse and the broader context is often seen as a great strength of discourse analysis (see Hardy, Harley and Phillips 2004; Hopf 2004). In comparison to other qualitative methodologies, discourse analysis is unique since it is “a set of assumptions concerning the constructive effects of language”, rather than merely a set of techniques (Hardy, Harley and Phillips 2004: 19). Even though discourse analysis is a method of textual analysis, it also is a methodology based on “a strong social constructivist epistemology” and the belief that meaning, or social reality, “arise out of interrelated bodies of texts – called discourses” that create new ideas, objects and practices (Hardy, Harley and Phillips 2004: 20). Thus, discourses “produce a material reality in the practices they invoke” and should be at the center of a study that is concerned with meaning and social reality (Hardy, Harley and Phillips 2004: 20).

(25)

21

between discourse and reality as both try to understand the context of a discourse when analyzing who is producing meaning and the connection between discourse and practice. The theoretical approaches together with discourse analysis provide a framework for my research and a framework for how to understand the power of discourse, in terms of demonstrable effects, i.e., practical approaches to climate change (Halperin and Heath 2012). The theoretical and methodological approach synergizes well with one another as both seek to understand “the relationship between discourse and reality in a particular context”, e.g., the practical implications connected to a security rhetoric/understanding. Using discourse analysis to place the climate change discourse in a broader context also enables this research to further judge the nature of the link between climate change and security, i.e. Copenhagen School‟s securitization or Paris School‟s climatization. Furthermore, discourse analysis fits with the theoretical frameworks and the research aim as it takes “an interest in practices (i.e. professional and everyday practices) as constitutive of power relations and knowledge systems”, and how these produce and problematize an issue in a certain way (Feindt and Oels 2005: 163).

This unobtrusive method of data collection helps to reduce bias and avoid unwanted effects such as the „interview effect‟, allowing for an analysis without the interference of someone else‟s interpretation (Halperin and Heath 2012: 318-319). Furthermore, this approach also can identify the fixing of meaning, called „articulation‟. Articulation refers to a process through which an association between different elements is repeatedly established, so that these elements are seen to be inherently or naturally connected. Articulation is accompanied by „interpellation‟, which refers to a “social process through which discourses „fix‟ meanings and become naturalized” (Halperin and Heath 2012: 316). While, the aim here is not necessarily to doubt a certain fixed meaning, identifying a dominant meaning or understanding still is helpful to point out the social construction element of the discourse and the dominance of a certain discourse. For example, exploring the established links between climate change and security can reflect a choice, by the authors/agencies, to employ one security understanding over another and thus, produce or reproduce specific knowledge (see Jasanoff 1990).

7.2 Case Selection

As mentioned earlier, the Paris School argues that a climatization is evident in the fields of defense, migration and development and has called for more research within these fields on “policy implications of climate change as a security issue” (Oels 2012: 202). This thesis

(26)

22

focuses on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), leaving out the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), i.e., the field of defense. Focusing the analysis to the fields of migration and development is done to limit the scope of the research, but there are more reasons for choosing the UNHCR and UNDP over the UNSC. First of all, however, an assessment of the latest IPCC report is done, in order to provide insight into the most recent findings regarding climate change and its impacts.

Looking at the IPCC assessment reports has proven useful to various scholars in their analysis of dominant understandings of climate change, its threats and impacts on security (e.g., see Detraz and Betsill 2009; Oels 2012). The IPCC‟s produces “consensus knowledge on climate change” and its discourse can be seen to „set the boundaries‟ for other discourses on climate change (Oels 2012: 186). Thus, looking at the 2014 Fifth Assessment Report (FAR) of the IPCC does not only provide an up-to-date analysis of the latest major research on climate change, but it also provides insight into how climate change is produced as a security issue by this highly legitimate climate-oriented institution. The analysis of the IPCC‟s understanding of climate change and security provides a context in which the UNHCR‟s and UNDP‟s discourse as well as practices can be located.

The UNHCR and UNDP have both identified climate change as a challenge for their respective fields and thus, included climate change in their plans of action (UNHCR 2014; UNDP 2014). The UNHCR foresees that it will have to respond to climate-induced migration, as natural degradation, changes in food security and availability of natural resources might force people to migrate (UNHCR 2014). Therefore, the UNHCR has released a multitude of documents on the UNHCR‟s understanding of climate change and its challenges, which role the UNHCR has in regards to climate change and climate-induced migration, and which strategies are appropriate/necessary. Similar to the UNHCR, the UNDP also has released documents and launched several projects on climate change and development. These documents and projects reflect the UNDP‟s understanding of the links between climate change and security, as well as which strategies are needed to respond to the issue of climate change in connection to development. Overall, the UNHCR and UNDP documents allow for an analysis of how climate change, as a security issue, is addressed and included in various strategies. This analysis allows for an assessment of how the fields of migration and development produce climate change as a security issue and how climate change is responded to within these fields.

(27)

23

The UNSC, on the other hand, has not taken any action on climate change so far and is also not speaking with a unanimous voice, as the states within the Security Council remain divided as to whether or not the UNSC should deal with climate change (Detraz and Betsill 2009). Thus, studying the UNSC in regards to climate change provides more insight into each of the states‟ understanding of the links between climate change and security. Brzoska (2012) has conducted such an analysis already. Furthermore, as the literature review has shown, Detraz and Betsill (2009) already have studied the discourse at the UNSC on climate change and security. It appears, that not much has changed since then as the UNSC so far has not taken any climate change-related action and recent discussions have rather focused on climate change in relation to energy security, instead of climate change per se (UN Security Council Report 2014). Hence, the UNHCR and UNDP represent more suitable cases for this research. 7.3 Materials

This section provides an overview of which materials are used for the analysis and why they have been chosen. The materials can be categorized in two groupings, each fulfilling a different purpose in the analysis. All materials used for the analysis are openly accessible on the web pages of the respective agencies.

First, I look at the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC on climate change from 2014. More specifically, I focus on the „Summary for Policymakers‟ (SPM) of Working Group II, which deals with „Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability‟. This part of the IPCC report, compared to the other parts, is the most relevant to this thesis as it assesses the risks of climate change, where vulnerabilities lie, and how to manage climate change‟s impacts (IPCC 2014). Thus, the Working Group II report is very appropriate in order to see how climate change is perceived and produced as a security issue, as well as which threats are considered most pressing. Furthermore, Detraz and Betsill (2009: 309) also have focused on the IPCC‟s Working Group II since these reports provide “valuable input into the intergovernmental deliberations […] and thus could be expected to shape the way that government negotiators conceptualize the problem of climate change.” Similarly, it could be expected that the IPCC‟s conceptual understanding of climate change and security also affects the way the UNDP and UNHCR assess climate change.

Second, the analysis of two documents from the policy fields of migration and development follows. Analyzing these documents helps to identify the employed understandings of the links between climate change and security. Moreover, this analysis provides greater insight into how these policy fields perceive/portray climate change in their

(28)

24

respective discourses and which practical approaches are considered appropriate. The two documents analyzed are:

(1) The UNHCR‟s paper „Climate change, natural disasters and human displacement: a UNHCR perspective‟ from 2009. This paper includes the UNHCR‟s understanding of climate change as a security concern, the role of the UNHCR in regards to climate change, and provides suggestions for future responses to climate change.

(2) The UNDP report „Adapting to Climate Change‟ from 2011. This report represents the UNDP‟s overarching understanding of climate change and its impacts, the UNDP‟s role in regards to climate change, and the general strategies of the agency.

It could be argued here that since these documents are not as new as the IPCC report it is difficult to see if the IPCC‟s understanding of climate change informs the UNHCR‟s and UNDP‟s understanding of it. Nevertheless, the latest (fifth) IPCC report simply represents the most contemporary understanding of climate change, whilst strongly building on the knowledge developed in previous reports. Therefore, the UNHCR‟s and UNDP‟s perspective on climate change can still be compared to the IPCC‟s perspective. Furthermore, as the UNCHR and UNDP have not released any major documents on climate change since the release of the latest IPCC‟s report, I assume that their reports from 2009 and 2011 still are very relevant. However, it might be interesting for future research to see how the perspectives on climate change have evolved in relation to the IPCC reports.

All materials used should be seen as representative for the general understanding and approach of the various agencies regarding climate change.

7.4 Coding

Qualitative research designs and especially interpretive methods have at times been critiqued for being too vague and not clear enough about how the researcher came to certain findings. In order to avoid such critique, qualitative research “must be conducted in a systematic manner”, meaning the research should be clear, plausible and coherent, but also credible and „fruitful‟ (Sadovnik 2007: 423; Halperin and Heath 2012: 317). Thus, a discourse analysis and any other textual analysis requires a clear „guide‟ on what the researcher is looking for in the texts, how the texts are being looked at, and how to show the presence of certain findings. The researcher can provide such a guide by taking the reader through the coding process of the selected material (Halperin and Heath 2012). The population of used texts is presented in the